I think 5% is extraordinarily high. Even if you have sexual intercourse during a woman's (48 hour!) fertile period, more likely than not she'll not get pregnant. Factor in the fact that many women, and many men, are either infertile, or not strongly fertile, and you wonder how on Earth a random act of intercourse can result in a 5% chance of pregnancy if it's the result of violence.
I've heard the 5% stat being bounced around since the infamous comment was first reported, and I'm trying to work out if it's 5% adjusted for something or what exactly.
Until Windows 95, I'd say that there was very little the two UIs had in common. Even 95 owed more to the Windows 1/2/3.x lineage than Macintosh. And anyone who saw Windows 1.0 (an environment I played around with a lot when I was a teenager) would have wondered if Microsoft ever saw a single Mac.
What are, seriously, the UI elements that Microsoft took? My answer to that is the same as the Android-iOS thing: nothing of significance was copied: what Apple did was to prove that users were comfortable with a different type of UI, and do so well enough that other manufacturers came in with their own take on things.
Apple's enthusiasts usually prove this by their enthusiasm: ask them to take an Android phone, and they'll protest, and after finally using it will come to the conclusion (if they're iPhone fans) that the iPhone is superior, and Google doesn't know what it's doing, and that Android is hard to use - or, of course, the complete opposite. What they'll never tell you is that the two devices are equivalent. They'll never say "Meh, just give me the cheapest phone with following specs {...}, they're all pretty much the same."
This was true in the Macintosh's first era too. Mac users didn't look over at their PC owning friends and remark "Gosh, that Windows thing is exactly like the Mac, just give me the cheapest PC or Mac you can get that runs... {...}", they made a point to note the way they felt the Mac was "superior" which, generally, involved the entire UI being completely different. That the Mac was different ended up being a point of pride as the two platforms went their seperate ways.
Executive summary? Xerox invented. Apple was bold enough to be inspired by Xerox. Microsoft, Commodore, Digital Research et al were comfortable enough to embrace the idea thanks to Apple making the first step. Copying? Meh, well, DR copied from Apple, there's little doubt about that, but I'd have been surprised if Windows was significantly different from what eventually was released if Microsoft, not Apple, had been the company made the bold step of marketing a completely new idea. Ironically, I suspect one difference is that Windows 1.x probably would have had overlapping windows.
I don't know, I'm still baffled by Oracle's decision to sue Google for making a programming language they had let languish become popular by providing a slightly different framework for it.
She's basically prevented Samsung from presenting a defense, so, no, she's pretty awful.
(And no, I don't care about arguments about whether Samsung did or didn't conform to arbitrary deadlines to submit evidence against clearly false claims that Apple had already submitted - if you are presiding over a case, and one of the parties cannot present their legitimate case due to procedures and rules you are responsible for, you fucked up.)
I completely disagree that a USB controller and supporting chipset isn't an option, a quick pop into Wal-Mart will show you any number of ridiculously cheap USB devices. Hey, forget Wal-mart, here's an $8 USB keyboard: http://www.amazon.com/107-Key-Windows-Keyboard-Black-USB/dp/B0038M3YM8 (do you think the most expensive part of the $8 cost is the USB chipset?)
So, ruling USB back in, the obvious solution is the micro-USB connector.
* Line in is a standard USB protocol, likewise line out (hence those USB headsets you can get.)
* Volume likewise can be implemented by supporting HID - Volume up and down have been standard keystrokes for a while on virtually every multimedia keyboard.
* Power is a standard part of the micro-USB connector, we can charge using it.
* Video out is supported by MHL, which is fast becoming a standard in the Android world.
* And finally, controlling playback is also supported by HID, again Play/Pause/Rewind/Fastforward are part of every modern keyboard, using standardized keystrokes.
No, just the right cable (unless you consider every cable an "adapter" of some sort, but I suspect not as that would make a micro-USB cable an adapter too)
MHL provides HDMI compatible output over the connector used for microUSB (and can co-exist with USB), and USB itself includes protocols for audio in/out. MHL+USB over micro-B is becoming standard in the Android world. There's no reason to eschew microUSB for these functions.
Speaking for myself, I've never wanted to carry around anything but the device itself. Being able to have a cheap, almost disposable, charger at work that works with all my devices is the way to go.
No, you don't have to be able to charge the iPhone at work - although I believe one of the major reasons they're suing Samsung is that the Galaxy Nexus violates their "Ridiculously poor battery life" patent - but I'm inclined to think most do, and most don't want to carry around their only USB cable everywhere they go to do it.
Please! Please! If Apple sued other manufacturers over violating their "Milk the customer by using a proprietary dock incompatible with everything else" patent, then the handful that don't would be forced to include proper working charging/HDMI/USB input/output using the standard connector used with microUSB and MHD.
Also Apple, if you could sue over "Locking devices down to only run approved apps", "Mechanisms to prevent modders from replacing your firmware with their own on their own devices" and similar actions, hey, I might even start to like you again!
IIRC, the Foundation started with a bunch of nerds enthusiasticlly building a giant encyclopedia containing the entire knowledge of civilization. I think it's safe to say that would never happen.
This plot relies upon the British police only having capacity to check the first nine, or less, cars.
Probably won't work now, but given another year of Cameron's austerity programmes, Scotland Yard may only have a couple of constables left, so it might have a chance...
Oh boy. So your objection, as I understand it, is that the letter effectively says "We can legally storm your embassy by redefining as not-an-embassy while we send in law enforcement". And you seriously believe that's a legitimate reason to claim that anyone who characterizes the statement as "Storming the embassy" is wrong?
I would respond to that, but actually the comment you're responding to already dealt with that kind of moronic sophistry.
Britain is very clearly, unambiguously, threatening to storm the current Ecuadorian embassy - that is, it intends to go in, and take by force, without the consent of the Ecuadorian government, and against the will of the Embassy's security apparatus, Assange. The legal basis they intend to use is neither here nor there. It doesn't change what they intend to do, it merely muddies the water in terms of Ecuador's available sanctions against Britain if Britain goes ahead with its threat.
The Foreign Minister of Ecuador said that this is what the British and Swedish governments told him.
It's very, very, difficult to believe that the government of Ecuador would actually want any part of this if it could avoid it, so I'm having difficulty believing the FM is lying. I'm also inclined to assume that the British and Swedish governments probably did say it, but in the context of "There are treaties that exist that mean that if the US made such a request, and it conformed to the treaty, we would be legally obliged to hand Assange over."
As I've said elsewhere, I find it very unlikely that there's any serious conspiracy to send Assange to the US (extradition from the UK would be easier, and in any case, what is Obama more likely to want? A high profile Whistleblower's trial in the US, or Assange convicted of sex crimes in Sweden?) But I don't have any problem believing the FM's statement on this, and I'm surprised you do.
You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy.
(...)
We need to reiterate that we consider the continued use of the diplomatic premises in this way incompatible with the Vienna convention and unsustainable and we have made clear the serious implications that this has for our diplomatic relations.
An FO spokeswoman, responding to the charges that the letter implies Britain intends to "storm" the embassy:
We have consistently made our position clear in our discussions with the government of Ecuador. The UK has a legal obligation to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden to face questioning over allegations of sexual offences and we remain determined to fulfil this obligation.
We have an obligation to extradite Mr Assange and it is only right that we give Ecuador the full picture.
I'm sorry, but what exactly is the above supposed to imply other than that Britain is making a serious threat to storm the embassy, if other options don't pan out?
I'm staggered, blown away, by the number of people here who think it doesn't mean that on the basis that the word "storm" isn't in the threat. It's right there, directly, there's no reading between the lines necessary: "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy."
You're correct, the letter spelt out, instead, the legal steps it may take that would allow it to go in and take Assange, rather than using the term "storm".
Also, while I'm pointing out that a fairly easy to deduce set of consequences is implied by the Foreign Office's letter and subsequent statements, I am in no way calling you a fastidious idiot. I am merely pointing out that the letter's and statements meaning is trivially easy to deduce, probably so for most people with an IQ over 50, and that your comment seems to be implying that the lack of a presence of a specific term means it doesn't actually mean what it actually means, and what people are saying it means.
The toilet might not need electricity, but certainly modern sanitation systems do. Typically there are pumps both in the water supply and the sewage disposal system, be it a septic tank or a more sophisticated "city water" type system.
FWIW, I saw this for myself living in Florida's Treasure Coast during the twin hurricanes of 2005. With most homes out of power for more than a week, several friends, neighbors, and colleagues started to have problems with sewage backing up, thanks to pumps that most of us had never even heard of until the event.
Moreover, the issue with DRM (either abolish it, or create an open standard, I leave it to you to determine which is more practical...) hasn't been addressed yet. Companies like Hulu and Amazon use Flash specifically to prevent people from being able to download streaming video and save it onto their devices.
No, I think the idea is that you quickly scan it when you see it.
True, sucks if you don't have a cellphone with you, but I've yet to see anything that completely relies upon QR Codes - there's usually a URL or telephone number or at least description in there somewhere. QR Codes are a convenience feature - giving you the option of not having to "remember" anything beyond what the code was about.
This "alternative" doesn't seem to do anything of the things a QR Code does, which makes it pointless, IMO.
The entire point of a QR-Code is that it can be placed where-ever anything visual can be placed. You can put a QR code on a billboard, on a streetsign, on a television image, in a newspaper, on a bus ad...
The 9110 (pretty much all 9xxx prior to the 9300 at any rate) is a computer with a friggin' GSM phone bolted on to the front. Pretty much literally. A 21xx series phone on the front (changed to a 61xx series in later models), with the microphone and speaker routed to the back, with a separate pocket computer - complete with keyboard - on the back. Early models ran a version of GEOS over an MS DOS clone on a low power 80386, later models ran an EPOC (that's Psion's system, from their clamshell pocket computers) derivative.
I cannot possibly see how you can claim these were "designed as phones". Sure, the phone bit was originally designed as a phone, but the computer bit is more computery than what you'd find in an iPhone. Literally in the case of the 9000.
Slashdot Mirror
I think 5% is extraordinarily high. Even if you have sexual intercourse during a woman's (48 hour!) fertile period, more likely than not she'll not get pregnant. Factor in the fact that many women, and many men, are either infertile, or not strongly fertile, and you wonder how on Earth a random act of intercourse can result in a 5% chance of pregnancy if it's the result of violence.
I've heard the 5% stat being bounced around since the infamous comment was first reported, and I'm trying to work out if it's 5% adjusted for something or what exactly.
Until Windows 95, I'd say that there was very little the two UIs had in common. Even 95 owed more to the Windows 1/2/3.x lineage than Macintosh. And anyone who saw Windows 1.0 (an environment I played around with a lot when I was a teenager) would have wondered if Microsoft ever saw a single Mac.
What are, seriously, the UI elements that Microsoft took? My answer to that is the same as the Android-iOS thing: nothing of significance was copied: what Apple did was to prove that users were comfortable with a different type of UI, and do so well enough that other manufacturers came in with their own take on things.
Apple's enthusiasts usually prove this by their enthusiasm: ask them to take an Android phone, and they'll protest, and after finally using it will come to the conclusion (if they're iPhone fans) that the iPhone is superior, and Google doesn't know what it's doing, and that Android is hard to use - or, of course, the complete opposite. What they'll never tell you is that the two devices are equivalent. They'll never say "Meh, just give me the cheapest phone with following specs {...}, they're all pretty much the same."
This was true in the Macintosh's first era too. Mac users didn't look over at their PC owning friends and remark "Gosh, that Windows thing is exactly like the Mac, just give me the cheapest PC or Mac you can get that runs... {...}", they made a point to note the way they felt the Mac was "superior" which, generally, involved the entire UI being completely different. That the Mac was different ended up being a point of pride as the two platforms went their seperate ways.
Executive summary? Xerox invented. Apple was bold enough to be inspired by Xerox. Microsoft, Commodore, Digital Research et al were comfortable enough to embrace the idea thanks to Apple making the first step. Copying? Meh, well, DR copied from Apple, there's little doubt about that, but I'd have been surprised if Windows was significantly different from what eventually was released if Microsoft, not Apple, had been the company made the bold step of marketing a completely new idea. Ironically, I suspect one difference is that Windows 1.x probably would have had overlapping windows.
I don't know, I'm still baffled by Oracle's decision to sue Google for making a programming language they had let languish become popular by providing a slightly different framework for it.
As I understand it from the summary:
When Apple does it: did Apple did it?
When Google fights back, OMG THEY'RE EVIL DID YOU HEAR THEY FIRED A GAJILLION PEOPLE?
She's basically prevented Samsung from presenting a defense, so, no, she's pretty awful.
(And no, I don't care about arguments about whether Samsung did or didn't conform to arbitrary deadlines to submit evidence against clearly false claims that Apple had already submitted - if you are presiding over a case, and one of the parties cannot present their legitimate case due to procedures and rules you are responsible for, you fucked up.)
No. I said I don't want to carry around my only USB cable.
I completely disagree that a USB controller and supporting chipset isn't an option, a quick pop into Wal-Mart will show you any number of ridiculously cheap USB devices. Hey, forget Wal-mart, here's an $8 USB keyboard: http://www.amazon.com/107-Key-Windows-Keyboard-Black-USB/dp/B0038M3YM8 (do you think the most expensive part of the $8 cost is the USB chipset?)
So, ruling USB back in, the obvious solution is the micro-USB connector.
* Line in is a standard USB protocol, likewise line out (hence those USB headsets you can get.)
* Volume likewise can be implemented by supporting HID - Volume up and down have been standard keystrokes for a while on virtually every multimedia keyboard.
* Power is a standard part of the micro-USB connector, we can charge using it.
* Video out is supported by MHL, which is fast becoming a standard in the Android world.
* And finally, controlling playback is also supported by HID, again Play/Pause/Rewind/Fastforward are part of every modern keyboard, using standardized keystrokes.
No, just the right cable (unless you consider every cable an "adapter" of some sort, but I suspect not as that would make a micro-USB cable an adapter too)
MHL provides HDMI compatible output over the connector used for microUSB (and can co-exist with USB), and USB itself includes protocols for audio in/out. MHL+USB over micro-B is becoming standard in the Android world. There's no reason to eschew microUSB for these functions.
Speaking for myself, I've never wanted to carry around anything but the device itself. Being able to have a cheap, almost disposable, charger at work that works with all my devices is the way to go.
No, you don't have to be able to charge the iPhone at work - although I believe one of the major reasons they're suing Samsung is that the Galaxy Nexus violates their "Ridiculously poor battery life" patent - but I'm inclined to think most do, and most don't want to carry around their only USB cable everywhere they go to do it.
Please! Please! If Apple sued other manufacturers over violating their "Milk the customer by using a proprietary dock incompatible with everything else" patent, then the handful that don't would be forced to include proper working charging/HDMI/USB input/output using the standard connector used with microUSB and MHD.
Also Apple, if you could sue over "Locking devices down to only run approved apps", "Mechanisms to prevent modders from replacing your firmware with their own on their own devices" and similar actions, hey, I might even start to like you again!
IIRC, the Foundation started with a bunch of nerds enthusiasticlly building a giant encyclopedia containing the entire knowledge of civilization. I think it's safe to say that would never happen.
This plot relies upon the British police only having capacity to check the first nine, or less, cars.
Probably won't work now, but given another year of Cameron's austerity programmes, Scotland Yard may only have a couple of constables left, so it might have a chance...
Oh boy. So your objection, as I understand it, is that the letter effectively says "We can legally storm your embassy by redefining as not-an-embassy while we send in law enforcement". And you seriously believe that's a legitimate reason to claim that anyone who characterizes the statement as "Storming the embassy" is wrong?
I would respond to that, but actually the comment you're responding to already dealt with that kind of moronic sophistry.
Britain is very clearly, unambiguously, threatening to storm the current Ecuadorian embassy - that is, it intends to go in, and take by force, without the consent of the Ecuadorian government, and against the will of the Embassy's security apparatus, Assange. The legal basis they intend to use is neither here nor there. It doesn't change what they intend to do, it merely muddies the water in terms of Ecuador's available sanctions against Britain if Britain goes ahead with its threat.
The Foreign Minister of Ecuador said that this is what the British and Swedish governments told him.
It's very, very, difficult to believe that the government of Ecuador would actually want any part of this if it could avoid it, so I'm having difficulty believing the FM is lying. I'm also inclined to assume that the British and Swedish governments probably did say it, but in the context of "There are treaties that exist that mean that if the US made such a request, and it conformed to the treaty, we would be legally obliged to hand Assange over."
As I've said elsewhere, I find it very unlikely that there's any serious conspiracy to send Assange to the US (extradition from the UK would be easier, and in any case, what is Obama more likely to want? A high profile Whistleblower's trial in the US, or Assange convicted of sex crimes in Sweden?) But I don't have any problem believing the FM's statement on this, and I'm surprised you do.
From the letter:
An FO spokeswoman, responding to the charges that the letter implies Britain intends to "storm" the embassy:
I'm sorry, but what exactly is the above supposed to imply other than that Britain is making a serious threat to storm the embassy, if other options don't pan out?
I'm staggered, blown away, by the number of people here who think it doesn't mean that on the basis that the word "storm" isn't in the threat. It's right there, directly, there's no reading between the lines necessary: "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy."
You're correct, the letter spelt out, instead, the legal steps it may take that would allow it to go in and take Assange, rather than using the term "storm".
Also, while I'm pointing out that a fairly easy to deduce set of consequences is implied by the Foreign Office's letter and subsequent statements, I am in no way calling you a fastidious idiot. I am merely pointing out that the letter's and statements meaning is trivially easy to deduce, probably so for most people with an IQ over 50, and that your comment seems to be implying that the lack of a presence of a specific term means it doesn't actually mean what it actually means, and what people are saying it means.
The toilet might not need electricity, but certainly modern sanitation systems do. Typically there are pumps both in the water supply and the sewage disposal system, be it a septic tank or a more sophisticated "city water" type system.
FWIW, I saw this for myself living in Florida's Treasure Coast during the twin hurricanes of 2005. With most homes out of power for more than a week, several friends, neighbors, and colleagues started to have problems with sewage backing up, thanks to pumps that most of us had never even heard of until the event.
Moreover, the issue with DRM (either abolish it, or create an open standard, I leave it to you to determine which is more practical...) hasn't been addressed yet. Companies like Hulu and Amazon use Flash specifically to prevent people from being able to download streaming video and save it onto their devices.
Yes: http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/archived-flash-player-versions.html
Just to be clear: you'll be able to download them for the foreseeable future. Whether they'll work in future versions of Android remains to be seen.
Yes I do. But what the hell does that have to do with anything?
Hmmm, if they can get the actor who voices Comic Store Guy to provide the speech synthesizer audio base...
No, I think the idea is that you quickly scan it when you see it.
True, sucks if you don't have a cellphone with you, but I've yet to see anything that completely relies upon QR Codes - there's usually a URL or telephone number or at least description in there somewhere. QR Codes are a convenience feature - giving you the option of not having to "remember" anything beyond what the code was about.
This "alternative" doesn't seem to do anything of the things a QR Code does, which makes it pointless, IMO.
The entire point of a QR-Code is that it can be placed where-ever anything visual can be placed. You can put a QR code on a billboard, on a streetsign, on a television image, in a newspaper, on a bus ad...
I refuse to believe you've used a Nokia 9110.
The 9110 (pretty much all 9xxx prior to the 9300 at any rate) is a computer with a friggin' GSM phone bolted on to the front. Pretty much literally. A 21xx series phone on the front (changed to a 61xx series in later models), with the microphone and speaker routed to the back, with a separate pocket computer - complete with keyboard - on the back. Early models ran a version of GEOS over an MS DOS clone on a low power 80386, later models ran an EPOC (that's Psion's system, from their clamshell pocket computers) derivative.
I cannot possibly see how you can claim these were "designed as phones". Sure, the phone bit was originally designed as a phone, but the computer bit is more computery than what you'd find in an iPhone. Literally in the case of the 9000.